If the principle of consent is not just reserved for sex, then in how many different contexts can it apply? In the August TAAAP Pride Chat, some of the participants questioned why “consent” is typically discussed around only sex (or, if taken any further, only physical touch), arguing that it should be applied to other forms of intimacy, as well — and that got me to thinking: if we’re going to ride this train, let’s take it even farther than that.Continue reading
Tag Archives: ethics
Hm, okay. Here’s a thought I’ve been having. Even though it’s January now, a lot of people still have Christmas decorations up, right, and the other day while driving through an unfamiliar part of town I passed a church(?) with a big ol’ “Keep Christ in Christmas” banner, and that reminded me of my whole… perspective, on… that.
I don’t know if I’ve said it here before but I’m saying it now: I don’t adhere to or support any guideline for How You Should Live Life that’s based on feeling the correct feelings, whether that means feeling others’ feelings (“empathy” as a prerequisite for correct morality); disallowing yourself unhappiness (“staying positive” as a virtue); or pushing discomfort, risk, and unease as self-justifying mandates (in praise for “vulnerability” and “getting out of your comfort zone”). Dogmas of feelings have always been useless at best for me, outright detrimental more often than not, and I don’t want any part in them.
[cw: health talk, food talk, diet talk, weight-adjacent talk]
People keep using “healthy” to mean “something you (general you) should do,” and so I feel compelled to keep talking about this.
“Healthiness” isn’t some kind of inherent trait, some innate Platonic value, embedded in a thing and applicable to all. And what I mean by that is, it’s frequently possible that what may be healthy for some may not be healthy for others, and what may not be healthy for some may yet be healthy for others.
Here’s an explanation of what I mean.
I saw something again — not linking on purpose because of context — mentioning, secondhand, a claim paraphrased as “if your kink bleeds into your everyday life outside of the bedroom, it’s bad for you.”
And like the responder I found, I take issue with that entire premise.
As far as I can tell, it’s basically a slight rewording of the common kink apologetics catchphrase — that XYZ earn their acceptability by being “only in the bedroom,” i.e. sure XYZ could be a bad thing, but not if it happens “only in the bedroom,” …which is a line of argument that has multiple, multiple problems, some of them more significant than others. They’re all so interrelated, though, I don’t know where to start.
So I’ll start here: Why does the locale of “the bedroom” grant some kind of moral/harm-metric exemption status? As best I can figure, it’s because “in the bedroom” (aka “during sex”) refers to some of the most private moments of the most private room of a private dwelling — supposedly far removed from the “public sphere” and “everyday life.” And therefore, it doesn’t affect anyone. And therefore, it doesn’t affect you.
[cw: kink talk, D/s talk, consent talk, rape mention, food mention]
I’ve heard this line multiple times now, so it’s getting its own post here for the next time it comes up again.